Coburn proposes $9 trillion deficit cut measure

WASHINGTON (AP) — One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.

The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.

Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets.

Coburn proposes $9 trillion deficit cut measure - Yahoo! News

Finally, a real, serious proposal to the debt problem. Of course, it will be DOA because there are too many cuts for the Democrats and too many tax increases for the Republicans, but it's the only proposal I've seen to date that actually addresses the hard choices that the bulk of Congress is too cowardly to make.

Bear in mind, Tom Coburn is one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate, but I have no doubt he'll be branded a RINO now.

This actually could be used as a legitimate starting point. I like the cuts in military, although they are not quite high enough. Same goes for tax increases, they need to be slightly higher. What I like best is the raising of the retirement age for SS and Medicare, although I think Medicare needs to move up faster and be tied to the age for SS. This is the first honest proposal I have seen from either side that addresses both spending and revenue and also doesn't just attack pet programs.
 
First we had 1 trillion in cuts, then had 2, then 4. This proposal should have been 8 but 9 is close enough. So next one should 18 trillion, then 36 trillion, and then no federal government at all.

You have to remember that this is over ten years. Also, even beyond that, there are going to have to be significant cuts in Medicare. There is just no way that we can support Medicare in the long term the way it is set up today. Raising the age for Medicare benefits makes the most sense to me in reducing those costs permanently.
 
some of coburns ideas are spot on some not so much... but I noticed a couple of things here..

he wants to cut benefits for the poor, elderly and veterans, but not one thing was said about cutting anything that congress and senators get,, how about they show us they are serious by cutting thier pay, perks, travel expenses, get the same healthcare we are being forced to buy ,, if they do that then maybe I will listen to what they have to say.. untill then , not so much
 
Doesn't do enough if ya ask me.

Less than a trillion a year over 10 years?
That's presuming that nothing new will be added in that time, never mind interest.

How many trillions did this president add in only his first year?

$0.3 Trillion.
.9T/yr proposed - .3/year = .6T/yr x 10 years = 6T in cuts
It would take 23 years to erase the 14T of red ink.
Again, that's presuming no new programs, no increases in any existing programs, and doesn't take into account interest or inflation.


Not enough fast enough.

:cool:

Very simply put, nobody even wants to try to pay off the debt. That question is not even on the table, nor should it be. We don't need to pay off the debt. Trying to do so would do more harm than good. All we need to do is run balanced or close to balanced budgets moving forward. That means cutting spending in some areas and increasing revenue to make certain we do not continue to add to the total debt. If we can find a way to do this, then economic growth will eventually diminish the size of the debt as a percentage of GDP. Ten years from now, GDP should be $20 tp $25 trillion. If we can keep the total debt below $17 trillion at that time, then we will have reduced the debt by about 30% as a percentage of GDP.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.

The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.

Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets.

Coburn proposes $9 trillion deficit cut measure - Yahoo! News

Finally, a real, serious proposal to the debt problem. Of course, it will be DOA because there are too many cuts for the Democrats and too many tax increases for the Republicans, but it's the only proposal I've seen to date that actually addresses the hard choices that the bulk of Congress is too cowardly to make.

Bear in mind, Tom Coburn is one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate, but I have no doubt he'll be branded a RINO now.

This actually could be used as a legitimate starting point. I like the cuts in military, although they are not quite high enough. Same goes for tax increases, they need to be slightly higher. What I like best is the raising of the retirement age for SS and Medicare, although I think Medicare needs to move up faster and be tied to the age for SS. This is the first honest proposal I have seen from either side that addresses both spending and revenue and also doesn't just attack pet programs.

First Ryan on budget, now this. The Republicans at least have a couple guys willing to stick their necks out to at minimum begin a discussion. Their thanks?
 
Finally, a real, serious proposal to the debt problem. Of course, it will be DOA because there are too many cuts for the Democrats and too many tax increases for the Republicans, but it's the only proposal I've seen to date that actually addresses the hard choices that the bulk of Congress is too cowardly to make.

Bear in mind, Tom Coburn is one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate, but I have no doubt he'll be branded a RINO now.

This actually could be used as a legitimate starting point. I like the cuts in military, although they are not quite high enough. Same goes for tax increases, they need to be slightly higher. What I like best is the raising of the retirement age for SS and Medicare, although I think Medicare needs to move up faster and be tied to the age for SS. This is the first honest proposal I have seen from either side that addresses both spending and revenue and also doesn't just attack pet programs.

First Ryan on budget, now this. The Republicans at least have a couple guys willing to stick their necks out to at minimum begin a discussion. Their thanks?

When Ryan threw his proposal out there, I stated that at least he put something out there to get people talking. The problem with his Medicare proposal was that it was just plain bad, and like all the other Republicans, there was no call at all for trying to increase revenues, something that must be done along with the spending cuts.

This plan actually addresses both cuts in spending and increases to revenue. It is the first plan that actually is worth looking at. The bottom line is this; if the Republicans want to move forward and actually want to get cuts in spending, then they need to also discuss ways to increase revenue. As much as Republicans think they have some kind of mandate, they do not. Both sides need to get over their partisan bullshit and start talking to each other rather than at each other. The biggest problem in all of this is the newly elected Tea Party members, who for the most part are clueless and are just getting in the way of progress. They are making it nearly impossible to have any realistic discussion about how to fix this mess, because they believe we can run government effectively on 13% of GDP and give everyone more tax cuts.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.

The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.

Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets.

Coburn proposes $9 trillion deficit cut measure - Yahoo! News

Finally, a real, serious proposal to the debt problem. Of course, it will be DOA because there are too many cuts for the Democrats and too many tax increases for the Republicans, but it's the only proposal I've seen to date that actually addresses the hard choices that the bulk of Congress is too cowardly to make.

Bear in mind, Tom Coburn is one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate, but I have no doubt he'll be branded a RINO now.

This is something more like it.

Naturally, it wont get anywhere because it is actually a serious proposal but it would be nice if they used something like this as a starting point and molded it into a plan most can reluctantly agree on.
 
All of you guys that need/want student aid, should be thrilled. If the feds stop the aid or drastically restrict it, tuition will come down, big time.

Link?
Some cons worship ignorance.
Meanwhile we fail compared to other countries in science and math. Never mind that young people can't compose a sentence.

I believe (at least I hope this is the case) what Anne meant was that a lot of schools like ITT and UTI and other career institutes charge in tuition right around what the average student can receive in student aid per year. For example--and I have long since left college so don't take the figures as gospel--if you can get $3,200 from the government in student aid in 2011, the tuition these schools charge will be about $3,200 so that they can get you into the class.

What Anne is saying, I think, is that if the average stipend for each student were reduced to $1,900, the tuition would be about $1,900. I sincerely hope she doesn't think that Arizona State or Creighton or the Citadel would drop their tuition rates to match what the government would pay. That is a false and silly stance to take.
 
Government on a federal level should be doing 0$ with education... There should be no debate on it because it shouldn't happen.

"Education" is the biggest scam of our time... Who can argue with "education" right? It's a wonder humans survived as long as we have and it's more interesting that with more people going to school than at any other time in human history things are collapsing all around us. Why has this "education" not saved us all?

If you want an education you can turn on your computer and almost accomplish anything for the cost of an internet connection. “Education” needs context, currently “education” means * how many thousands of dollars did you spend*, and that’s about it.

I can certainly agree with you that education could be FAR more efficient, and that we ought to be using the internet to make that happen.

I ALSO agree that the theory that we can educate ourselves out of this economic dilemma we've got ourselves in is wishful thinking, too.

We already have a huge population of highly educated people who cannot find suitable employment. We also have a huge population of highly educated people burdened with educational debts that are dragging them down economically, too.

Now obviously some degrees have a much higher market value than others.

But if every student gravitated toward those areas of study, the market value of those graduates will plummet.

And besides, even those with degrees in the areas of study that currently pay fairly well are finding themselves competing with the educated
in other nations.

While I have no doubt that an educated public is a good thing, generally, it is silly to assume that more education will solve the economic problems this nation and probably most first world nations are now facing.

Our economic problems have nothing whatever to do with a lack of educated people.

Except perhaps as it pertains to haveing EDUCATED VOTERS.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #51
All of you guys that need/want student aid, should be thrilled. If the feds stop the aid or drastically restrict it, tuition will come down, big time.

Link?

I don't know that she can link to something that hasn't happened yet, but her premise is correct. It's basic economic principles. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Higher demand will result in higher prices. The cost of college tuition is close to reaching the point at which the benefits of having a degree are no longer worth the cost of getting it. Eventually, enrollment is going to drop and colleges will be forced to lower their tuition rates in order to get students to attend. Cutting back on the amount of student loans would hasten that. This is yet another problem caused by the federal government. I've read quite a few articles on this the past couple of years.

As College Tuitions Rise, Some Say It's Not Worth the Cost - ABC News
 
So let me get this strait... In 2 years of cuts, costs go up and you blame cuts. Over 30-40 years costs go up so much it's blinding and it's not because of the massive spending of Government?

Here is the prediction. You stop Government aid, costs rise, schools lose revenue and start finding ways to cut costs while at the same time try and figure out how to get more students... Evolution in that market takes place and then we get better and a more accessible education, quicker and cheaper.

This evolution has been proven tens of thousands of times.

It hasn't just been two years of cuts however. Let me ask you something, let's say we cut all federal pell grants and student loans. College once again becomes only affordable for the rich. What happens when tuition rates don't have the drastic decrease you seem to think will happen?

Never in the history of mankind has what you say will happen, happened... Why would you think that collage would only become for the rich? The only reason collage becomes more expensive VS let’s say cell phone or computers... software, medication and pretty much everything ever offered/made by mankind is because Government subsidizes the cost, meaning cost never has to become competitive...

As I said, schools would probably become online education, web cam classes/lecture with literally no building ever gone to by the student meaning no overhead… Teachers could be better because they can have a class of 1,000 and the schools don’t need to hire 10 teachers to teach, just 1 and the best 1.

Anyways, at this point I don’t think you honestly care about what the answer is so I’m leaving this “debate.” Real world experience and recorded history should be enough proof that the costs would drastically be reduced, possibly to near nothing over time, but again that is just based on how the world has worked since the beginning of competitive and open markets.
 
[Do you have any idea how cheap schooling would be if people turned to online education over going to a massive school with HUGE overhead?

Online courses often pricier for students | Higher Ed | eSchoolNews.com

Fees imposed on college students who take online classes can be more than $1,300 at some schools, according to a new survey claiming that internet-based education is often more costly for students than attending classes on campus.

The one-time registration fees charged to web-based students are not levied on students who take traditional classes, and some online college programs include other charges for course materials and “technology resources and services,” according to a survey of 182 institutions conducted by the Campus Computing Project and Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (WCET).

The report was released Oct. 22.
Online students are paying less than their brick-and-mortar peers at 20 percent of the campuses surveyed, while 31 percent are paying the same price, according to the survey. But nearly half of respondents said their online students are paying more for a college education than traditional students.

As someone who has taken a class that is online, I can also tell you that it has it's downsides as well.

Context. Does Government subsidize through student aid on these classes? If so why do you seem to go out of your way to prove my point for me? How does proving me right help you?
 
Some cons worship ignorance.
Meanwhile we fail compared to other countries in science and math. Never mind that young people can't compose a sentence.

I believe (at least I hope this is the case) what Anne meant was that a lot of schools like ITT and UTI and other career institutes charge in tuition right around what the average student can receive in student aid per year. For example--and I have long since left college so don't take the figures as gospel--if you can get $3,200 from the government in student aid in 2011, the tuition these schools charge will be about $3,200 so that they can get you into the class.

What Anne is saying, I think, is that if the average stipend for each student were reduced to $1,900, the tuition would be about $1,900. I sincerely hope she doesn't think that Arizona State or Creighton or the Citadel would drop their tuition rates to match what the government would pay. That is a false and silly stance to take.
If the stipend were reduced some schools would reduce their tuition, mostly vocational schools and other schools that depend on these student stipends. These schools are not that profitable so the class sizes would increase. The big universities wouldn't adjust their tuition.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.

The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.

Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets.

Coburn proposes $9 trillion deficit cut measure - Yahoo! News

Finally, a real, serious proposal to the debt problem. Of course, it will be DOA because there are too many cuts for the Democrats and too many tax increases for the Republicans, but it's the only proposal I've seen to date that actually addresses the hard choices that the bulk of Congress is too cowardly to make.

Bear in mind, Tom Coburn is one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate, but I have no doubt he'll be branded a RINO now.

Why, oh why is defense spending and the DoD budget still off limits to the GOP?
 
Why, oh why is defense spending and the DoD budget still off limits to the GOP?

Not to me it isn't.

It's one of the first areas I'd look at as President. Get a report of every single military installation we have... everywhere. Have it list why we have it, how much we spend to maintain it, etc. From that, I'd start looking where we can cut things without affecting the safety of this country or our allies.
 
So let me get this strait... In 2 years of cuts, costs go up and you blame cuts. Over 30-40 years costs go up so much it's blinding and it's not because of the massive spending of Government?

Here is the prediction. You stop Government aid, costs rise, schools lose revenue and start finding ways to cut costs while at the same time try and figure out how to get more students... Evolution in that market takes place and then we get better and a more accessible education, quicker and cheaper.

This evolution has been proven tens of thousands of times.

It hasn't just been two years of cuts however. Let me ask you something, let's say we cut all federal pell grants and student loans. College once again becomes only affordable for the rich. What happens when tuition rates don't have the drastic decrease you seem to think will happen?

when was college only for the rich? and if the colleges don't have students, supply and demand means the costs will go down. it is naive to think the grants and loans haven't caused colleges to continually raise costs because they know the students will simply get larger grants/loans.

and annie gave you a multiple links to support this. further, all you have to do is look at historical costs and compare them to the ever rising government aid.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.

The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.

Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets.

Coburn proposes $9 trillion deficit cut measure - Yahoo! News

Finally, a real, serious proposal to the debt problem. Of course, it will be DOA because there are too many cuts for the Democrats and too many tax increases for the Republicans, but it's the only proposal I've seen to date that actually addresses the hard choices that the bulk of Congress is too cowardly to make.

Bear in mind, Tom Coburn is one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate, but I have no doubt he'll be branded a RINO now.

Why, oh why is defense spending and the DoD budget still off limits to the GOP?

you don't think cutting 1 trillion from the pentagon is cutting defense spending? :eusa_eh:
 
This actually could be used as a legitimate starting point. I like the cuts in military, although they are not quite high enough. Same goes for tax increases, they need to be slightly higher. What I like best is the raising of the retirement age for SS and Medicare, although I think Medicare needs to move up faster and be tied to the age for SS. This is the first honest proposal I have seen from either side that addresses both spending and revenue and also doesn't just attack pet programs.

First Ryan on budget, now this. The Republicans at least have a couple guys willing to stick their necks out to at minimum begin a discussion. Their thanks?

When Ryan threw his proposal out there, I stated that at least he put something out there to get people talking. The problem with his Medicare proposal was that it was just plain bad, and like all the other Republicans, there was no call at all for trying to increase revenues, something that must be done along with the spending cuts.

This plan actually addresses both cuts in spending and increases to revenue. It is the first plan that actually is worth looking at. The bottom line is this; if the Republicans want to move forward and actually want to get cuts in spending, then they need to also discuss ways to increase revenue. As much as Republicans think they have some kind of mandate, they do not. Both sides need to get over their partisan bullshit and start talking to each other rather than at each other. The biggest problem in all of this is the newly elected Tea Party members, who for the most part are clueless and are just getting in the way of progress. They are making it nearly impossible to have any realistic discussion about how to fix this mess, because they believe we can run government effectively on 13% of GDP and give everyone more tax cuts.

I thought the medicare plan was a good thing. Too bad the democrats had to demagogue it and scare the elderly who weren't even going to be affected by it.
As for revenues it seems you listened to the talking heads on the left.
Ryan proposed the same things Simpson/Bolwes proposed. Removing loopholes while also lowering the tax rates.
 

Forum List

Back
Top